[From the
introduction to v.10 #1: Our
first article this month is by George Gillespie. Gillespie, one of the
commissioners from the Kirk of Scotland to the Westminster Assembly,
takes on the question of whether Judas partook of the Lord’s Supper.
The article is an excerpt from Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming,
his masterful work devoted to the refutation of the Erastian error. The
particular error that Gillespie was combating in this article is the
idea that the church and her ministers do not have an intrinsic
authority from the Lord to exercise the keys of the kingdom in
excommunicating the unrepentant. While the sort of Erastianism that was
represented at the Westminster Assembly does not necessarily impact many
churches in this country, this particular excerpt is interesting for its
study of the distinction that church governors must make between the
church and the world.

Web
Note: Unless you have the Greek font used in this article, these words
will not show up well. See the PDF version if this is a problem.]

Did Judas Partake of
the Lord's Supper

George Gillespie

Mr.
Prynne has filled up a good part of his Vindication
with the case of Judas,[1]
as going very far in the deciding of this present controversy. But as
Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that it
cannot be proved that Peter was ever bishop of Rome, but rather that
he was not; and if he had, this cannot prove the Pope’s supremacy;
the like I say of this case of Judas: Mr. Prynne shall never be able
to prove that Judas did receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper;
and if he could prove it, yet it shall not at all help that cause
which he maintains.

I begin with the matter of fact, Whether
Judas received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, as well as the
other apostles, which is the question by him stated. For decision
whereof I hold it necessary, first of all, that these two things be
premised, concerning the harmony of the evangelists in that matter of
Judas, the use whereof we shall see afterwards: Matthew and Mark tell
us Christ’s discourse of the traitor at table, and the discovery of
Judas, before the institution of the sacrament; Luke has the same
thing after the institution and distribution of the sacrament: so that
either Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation, or Luke speaks by a
recapitulation; that is, either Matthew and Mark put before what was
done after, or Luke puts after what was done before. Now that there is
in Luke an [uJsterologiva], a
narration of that after the institution which was indeed before the
institution of the sacrament, may thus appear: —

1. That very thing which Luke places
after the institution and distribution of the sacrament, Luke
22:21-23, “Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on
the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined, but
woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. And they began to inquire
among themselves which of them it was that should do this thing” —
the very same thing do Matthew and Mark record before the institution
of the sacrament (Matt. 26:21-26; Mark 14:18-22); and it is more
credible that one of the evangelists is to be reduced to the order of
two, rather than two to the order of one.

2. Especially considering that Luke does
not relate the business of the last supper according to that order
wherein things were acted or spoken, as is manifest by Luke 22:17, 18,
“And he took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide
it among yourselves.” This, though related before the taking and
breaking of the bread, yet it is but by an anticipation or
preoccupation, occasioned by that which had preceded, ver. 16, so to
join the protestation of not drinking again, with that of not eating
again the passover with his disciples; therefore Beza,[2]
Salmeron,[3]
Maldonat,[4]
and others, following Augustine and Euthymius, do resolve it is an
anticipation, even as Paul mentions the cup before the bread (1 Cor.
10:16). I know some understand the cup mentioned Luke 22:17, to be the
paschal cup; others, to be the cup in the ordinary supper; but to me
it is plain that it was the eucharistical cup. Yea, Mr. Prynne takes
it so (p. 25), because that which Luke says of that cup, that Christ
took it, and gave thanks, and gave it to the disciples, that they
might all drink of it, and told them he would not drink with them any
more of the fruit of the vine till the kingdom of God should come; all
this is the very same which Matthew and Mark record of the
eucharistical cup. Therefore our non-conformists were wont to argue
from that place, that the minister ought not to give the sacramental
elements to each communicant out of his own hand, but the communicants
ought to divide the elements among themselves, because Christ says in
that place, of the cup, “Divide it among yourselves.”

3. Luke says not that after supper, or
after they had done with the sacrament, Christ told his disciples that
one of them should betray him; only he adds, after the history of the
sacrament, what Christ said concerning the traitor. But Matthew and
Mark do not only record Christ’s words concerning the traitor before
they make narration concerning the sacrament, but they record
expressly that that discourse, and the discovery of the traitor, was [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n]:
“As they did eat,” Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18, “Now, when the
evening was come, he sat down with the twelve,” and immediately
follows, as the first purpose which Christ spoke of, “And as they
did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray
me;” which could not be so, if Luke relate Christ’s words
concerning the traitor in that order in which they were first uttered;
for Luke having told us, ver. 22, that Christ took the cup after
supper and said, “This cup is the New Testament,” &c., adds,
“But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the
table.” So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his
disciples concerning the traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and
Mark do say), but after they had done eating. If it be said that [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n]
may suffer this sense, when they
had eaten, or having eaten, I
answer, The context will not suffer that sense; for they were, indeed,
eating in the time of that discourse, Matt. 26:23, “He that dippeth
his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me;” John 13:26,
“He it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it.”

4. Musculus, in Loc.
Com. de Coen. Dom, p. 362,[5]
gives this reason out of Rupertus, why Luke’s narration of
Christ’s words concerning the traitor, is placed by a recapitulation
after the sacrament: because Luke is the only evangelist who writes
distinctly of the paschal supper, and what Christ said at that supper;
and having once fallen upon that purpose, the connection of the matter
did require that he should immediately add the story of the
eucharistical supper, without interlacing that of the traitor, which
reason will pass for good with such as think Judas did eat of the
paschal supper, and that Christ’s words concerning him were spoken
at the paschal supper, which I greatly doubt of.

5. Mr. Prynne, p. 18, in effect grants
the same thing that I say; for he says, “That Matthew and Mark
record, that immediately before the institution of the sacrament, as
they sat at meat, Jesus said unto the twelve, Verily one of you shall
betray me, whereupon they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto
him,” &c. He adds, “That Judas was
the last man that said, Is it I? immediately before the
institution,” as Matthew records. But of Luke he says only thus
much, that he “placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas’s
betraying him, after the institution and distribution of the
sacrament, not before it.” If it be thus, as Mr. Prynne
acknowledges, that Matthew and Mark record that Christ had that
discourse concerning Judas before the institution of the sacrament,
then most certainly it was before the institution of the sacrament,
because it must needs be true which Matthew and Mark say. Whence it
will necessarily follow that Luke does not mention that discourse
concerning Judas in its proper place, and this does not offer the
least violence to the text in Luke, because he does not say that
Christ spoke these words after the sacrament, only he places these
words after the sacrament, as Mr. Prynne says rightly. When Scripture
says that such a thing was done at such a time, it must be so
believed; but when Scripture mentions one thing after another, that
will not prove that the thing last mentioned was last done. More
plainly, Mr. Prynne, p. 26-27, tells us that the sacrament was given
after Christ had particularly informed his disciples that one of them
should betray him, which he proves from John 13:18-28; Matt. 26:20-36;
Mark 14:18-22; Luke 22:21-23. Whence it follows inevitably, by his own
confession, that Matthew and Mark, recording that discourse about
Judas after the sacrament, do place it in the proper order; and that
Luke, mentioning that discourse about Judas after the sacrament, does
not place it in its own place. This is the first thing which I thought
good to premise, which will easily take off the strongest argument
which ever I heard alleged for Judas’s receiving of the sacrament,
namely this, that Luke, immediately after the institution and
distribution of the sacrament, adds, “But behold the hand of him
that betrayeth me, is with me at the table.” If these words were not
uttered by Christ in that order wherein Luke places them (which I have
proved), then the argument is not conclusive.

The second thing to be premised is this:
That the story which we have, John 13, from the beginning to ver. 31,
concerning the supper at which Christ discoursed of Judas and gave him
the sop, after which he went immediately out, was neither in Bethany
two days before the Passover, as the Antidote
Animadverted tells us,[6]
p. 5; nor yet after the institution of the sacrament, as Mr. Prynne
tells us, Vindic. p. 25,
herein differing either from himself or his friend. That supper in
Bethany, the pamphlet says, was two days before the Passover; but some
interpreters collect from John 12:1, 2, it was longer before, Christ
having come to Bethany six days before, and after that supper, the
next day Christ did ride into Jerusalem on a young ass, and the people
cried, Hosanna (John 12:12): the very story which we have, Matt. 21.
Mark says, that two days before the Passover, the chief priests and
scribes sought how to put Christ to death; but he does not say that
the supper in Bethany was two days before the passover. But of this I
will not contend, whenever it was, it is not much material to the
present question; there was nothing at that supper concerning Judas,
but a rebuking of him for having indignation at the spending of the
alabaster box of ointment, and from that he sought opportunity to
betray Christ. But the discourse between Christ and his apostles
concerning one of them that should betray him, and their asking him
one by one, “Is it I ?” was in the very night of the Passover, as
is clear, Matt. 26:19-26; Mark 14:16-22; so that the story, John
13:18-30, being the same with that in Matthew and Mark, could not be
two days before the Passover; and if, two days before, Christ had
discovered to John who should betray him, by giving the sop to Judas,
how could every one of the disciples (and so John among the rest) be
ignorant of it two days after, which made every one of them to ask,
“Is it I?” Finally, That very night in which the Lord Jesus did
institute the sacrament, the disciples began to be sorrowful, and
began to inquire which of them it was that should betray him, Matt.
26:22; Mark 14:19; Luke 22:23. But if Christ had told them two days
before, that one of themselves who did sit at table with him, should
betray him, surely, they had, at that time, begun to be sorrowful, and
to ask every one, “Is it I?”

That which has been said does also
discover that other mistake, that the discourse at table, concerning
the traitor and the giving of the sop to Judas, John 13, was after the
institution of the sacrament. If it were after, then either that in
John is not the same with the discourse concerning the traitor
mentioned by Matthew and Mark, or otherwise Matthew and Mark speak by
anticipation. But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew
and Mark, and that the discourse concerning the traitor, mentioned by
John, must be in the evangelical harmony put together with that in
Matthew and Mark, as making one and the same story. And if this in
John had been posterior to that in Matthew, then why does Mr. Prynne
himself join these together as one (p. 18, 19)?

These things premised, I come to the
arguments which prove that Judas did not receive the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper.

The first argument (which was by me
touched in that sermon so much quarreled by Mr. Prynne)[7]
is this: It is said of Judas (John 13:30), “He then, having received
the sop, went immediately out.” But this sop, or morsel, was given
him before the sacrament, whilst they were yet eating the other
supper, at the end whereof Christ did institute the sacrament;
therefore Judas went away before the sacrament. Let us hear Mr.
Prynne’s four answers to this argument (p. 24, 25). First, he says,
Judas went not out till after supper (John 13:2); “And supper being
ended,” &c. Ans. [deivpnou genomevnou] will not prove that
the supper was fully ended. The Centurists (cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 10),[8]
explain John 13:2 thus, Magnâ,
coenoe hujus parte peractâ:
A great part of this supper being done. Yea, the Greek may be as
well turned thus, “When they were at supper,” as the late English
Annotations have it.[9]
Ludovicus de Dieu chooses this sense;[10]
Salmeron and others prove it from ver. 4, “He riseth from supper,”
with ver. 12, He sat down again to supper, and dipped the sop. Take
but two like instances in this same story of the passion, Matt. 26:6,
[to`u de; jIhsou` genomevnou ejn Bhqaniva]: “Now when
Jesus was in Bethany;” not, After
Jesus was in Bethany. Matt. 26:20, [jOyiva~
de; genomevnh~]: “Now, when the even was come;” not, when
the even was ended. His second answer, that all the other three
evangelists prove that Judas was present at the sacrament, is but petitio
principii.[11]Thirdly, he says, the sacrament was not instituted after supper,
but as they sat at supper. Ans. It was, indeed, instituted while they were sitting at supper,
or before they rose from supper, so that they were still continuing in
a table gesture; yet the actions must needs be distinguished, for they
did not, at the same instant, receive the sacrament, and eat of
another supper too. And though it be said of the bread, that “as
they did eat, Jesus took bread,” yet of the cup Paul and Luke say,
that Jesus took it “after supper;” that is, after they had done
eating, therefore, certainly, after Judas got the sop and went away,
at which instant they had not done eating. Neither is there any ground
at all, Luke 22:17, to prove that he took the cup during supper, as
Mr. Prynne conceives, but finding no strength herein, he adds, that
some learned men are of opinion, that Christ had, that night,
“first, his paschal supper, at the close whereof he instituted his
own supper,” 1 Cor 11:21, 22; secondly, an ordinary supper, which
succeeded the institution of his own, in imitation whereof the
Corinthians and primitive Christians had their love feasts, which they
did eat immediately after the Lord’s supper; and this is more than
intimated, John 13:2, 12-31) &c., therefore Luke’s after supper, he took the cup, must be meant only after
the paschal supper, not the other supper.”[12]

Ans.
I verily believe that, beside the paschal and eucharistical
suppers,[13]
Christ and his disciples had, that night, a common or ordinary supper,
and so think Calvin and Beza upon Matt. 26:20; Pareus upon Matt.
26:21; Fulk on 1 Cor. 11:23; Cartwright, Ibid.,
and in his Harmony, lib.
3, p. 173;[14]
Pelargus in John 13, quest. 2; Tossanus in Matt. 26;[15]
Tolet and Maldonat upon John 13:2;[16]
Jansenius, Conc. Evang., cap.
131;[17]
and divers others. I am very glad that Mr. Prynne grants it; and I
approve his reason that, in the paschal supper, we read of no sops,
nor aught to dip them in. The Jews, indeed, tell us of a sauce in the
passover, which they call charoseth;
but, I suppose, Christ kept the passover according to the law, and did
not tie himself to rites which had come in by tradition. I could bring
other reasons to prove an ordinary supper, if it were here necessary.
But what gains Mr. Prynne hereby? Surely he loses much, as shall
appear afterwards.

2. Whereas, he thinks the common supper
at which Christ did wash his disciple’s feet, and discover Judas,
and give him the sop, was after the sacrament, as I know not those
learned men that think as he does in this point, so it is more than he
can prove. The contrary has been proved from Matthew and Mark, who
record that the discourse concerning Judas, was while they were eating
that supper which preceded the sacrament; so that the giving of the
sop to Judas must be before the sacrament. But after the sacrament,
both Matthew and Mark do immediately add, “And when they had sung an
hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.”

3. As for that of the Corinthians, the
very place cited by himself makes against him, 1 Cor. 11:21; for when
they came together to eat the Lord’s supper, every one did [prolambavnein]
first take his own supper, and that in imitation of Christ, who gave
the sacrament after supper; so Aquinas, Lyra,[18]
and others, following Augustine. This taking first, or before, has
reference to the sacrament; because it is spoken of every one who came
to the Lord’s table, “Every one taketh before his own supper,”
which made such a disparity, that one was hungry, and another drunken,
at the sacrament, the poor having too little, and the rich too much,
at their own supper.[19]

4. The example of the ancient Christians
will help him as little. I find no such thing in Tertullian’s Apologetic, as the eating of the love feasts immediately after the
Lord’s supper. But I find both in the African Canons[20]
and in Augustine,[21]
and in Walafridus Strabo,[22]
that once in the year (and oftener by divers) the sacrament was
received after the ordinary meat, for a commemoration of that which
Christ did in the night wherein he was betrayed. It had been formerly
in use among divers to take the sacrament ordinarily after meat, till
the African Council discharged it, as Laurentius de la Barre observes
in the notes upon Tertullian (p. 339, Paris edit., 1580). Augustine (epist. 118, cap.
5, 6), answers certain queries of Januarius, concerning eating or not
eating before the sacrament. He says that Christ did indeed give the
sacrament after supper, and that the Corinthians did also take it
after supper; but that the Scripture has not tied us to follow these
examples, but left us at liberty. And, upon this ground, he defends
the church’s custom at that time of taking the sacrament fasting,
for greater reverence to the ordinance. But in this he speaks plainly,[23]
that when Christ was eating with the disciples, and telling them that
one of them should betray him, he had not then given the sacrament.
With Augustine’s judgment agrees that epistle of Chrysostom, where,
answering an objection which had been made against him, that he had
given the sacrament to some that were not fasting, he denies the fact,
but adds, if he had done so it had been no sin, because Christ gave
the sacrament to the apostles after they had supped. [Kaqelevtwsan ajutoŸn toŸn kuvrion o}~ metav to;
deipnh`sai th;n koinwnivan e{dwke]: Let them depose (he
says) the Lord himself, who gave the communion after supper. In
commemoration whereof the ancient church (even when they received the
sacrament fasting at other times, yet) upon the passion day, called
Good Friday, received it after meals, as I proved before. And this I
also add by the way, that though Paul condemns the Corinthians for
eating their love feast in the church, yet he allows them to eat at
home before they come to the Lord’s table, as the Centurists (cent.
1, lib. 2, cap. 6, p. 384),[24]
prove from 1 Cor. 11:34, “And if any man hunger, let him eat at
home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.” Casaubon (exerc.
16, p. 367, edit. Franco.
1615),[25]
thinks it was in imitation of Christ’s example that those Egyptians
mentioned by Socrates did take the sacrament at night, after they had
liberally supped, [pantoivwn ejdesmavtwn ejmforhqevnte"]:being filled with all sorts of meats.

I conclude, therefore, that when Luke
says, “After supper he took the cup,” the meaning is, after both
paschal and common supper, and that there was no other eating after
the sacrament that night, and so, consequently, the giving of the sop
to Judas must needs be before the sacrament; and his going out
immediately after the sop, proves that he did not receive the
sacrament.

But Mr. Prynne gives us a fourth answer,
which is the last (but a very weak) refuge. The word “immediately
(he says), many times, in our common speech, signifies soon
after, or not long after, as
we usually say we will do this or that immediately, instantly,
presently, whereas we mean only speedily, within a short time.” Ans. 1. This is no good report which Mr. Prynne brings upon the
English tongue, that men promise to do a thing immediately, when they do not mean to do it immediately. I hope every conscientious man will be loath to say immediately,
except when he means immediately (for I know not how to explain immediately,
but by immediately); and
for an usual form of speaking, which is not according to the rule of
the word, it is a very bad commentary to the language of the Holy
Ghost. 2. And if that form of speech be usual in making of promises,
yet I have never known it usual in writing of histories, to say that
such a thing was done immediately after such a thing, and yet divers other things
intervened between them. If between Judas’s getting of the sop and
his going out, did intervene the instituting of the sacrament, the
taking, blessing, breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread;
also the taking and giving of the cup, and their dividing it among
themselves, and drinking all of it; how can it then be a true
narration that Judas went out immediately after his receiving of the
sop? 3. Neither is it likely that Satan would suffer Judas to stay any
space after he was once discovered, lest the company and conference of
Christ and his apostles should take him off from his wicked purpose.
4. Gerhardus having in his Common
Places, given that answer, that the word immediately
maysuffer this sense,
that shortly thereafter Judas went forth, he does professedly recall
that answer in his Continuation
of the Harmony, cap. 171, p. 453, and that upon this ground,
because Judas being mightily irritated and exasperated, both by the
sop and by Christ’s answer (for when Judas asked, “Is it I?”
Christ answered, “Thou hast said”), would certainly break away
abruptly, and very immediately.[26]
So much of the first argument.

The second argument (which I also
touched in my sermon) was this: As Christ said to the communicants,
“Drink ye all of it,” Matt. 26:27; “And they all drank,” Matt.
[sic Mark] 14:23; so he says to them all, “This is my body which is
broken for you; this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which
is shed for you,” Luke 22:19, 20. But if Judas had been one of the
communicants, it is not credible that Christ would have said so in
reference to him as well as to the other apostles. This argument Mr.
Prynne, p. 25, does quite mistake, as if the strength of it lay in a
supposed particular application of the words of the institution to
each communicant, which I never meant, but dislike it as much as he.
The words were directed to all, in the plural, “This is my body
broken for you, &c; my blood shed for you” &c. Mr. Prynne
conceives that it might have been said to Judas, being meant by
Christ, “only conditionally, that his body was broken, and his blood
was shed for him, if he would really receive them by faith.” Jonas
Schlichtingius, a Socinian,[27]
in his book against Meisnerus, p. 803,[28]
though he supposes, as Mr. Prynne does, that Judas was present at the
giving of the sacrament, yet he holds that it is not to be imagined
that Christ would have said to Judas, that his body was broken for
him. And shall we then, who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was
a satisfaction to the justice of God for sin (which the Socinians
believe not), admit that Christ meant to comprehend Judas among
others, when he said, “This is my body which is broken for you?”

Ministers do indeed offer Christ to all,
upon condition of believing, being commanded to preach the gospel to
every creature, and not knowing who are reprobates; but that Christ
himself (knowing that the son of perdition was now lost, that the
Scripture might be fulfilled, John 17:12) would, in the sacrament
(which is more applicative than the Word, and particularizes the
promises to the receivers), so speak, as that, in any sense, those
words might be applied to Judas, that even for him, his body was
broken and his blood shed; and that, thereupon, the seals should be
given him, to me is not at all credible, and I prove the negative by
four arguments (though I might give many more): 1. If Christ did, in
reference to Judas, mean conditionally, that his body was broken, and
his blood shed for him, if he would believe (as Mr. Prynne holds),
then he meant conditionally to save the son of perdition, whom he knew
infallibly to be lost, and that he should be certainly damned and go
to hell, and that in eating the sacrament, he would certainly eat and
drink judgment to himself (all which Mr. Prynne himself, p. 26, says
Christ infallibly knew). But who dare think or say so of Jesus Christ?
Suppose a minister knew infallibly that such an one had blasphemed
against the Holy Ghost (which sin the Centurists and others think to
have been committed by Judas, which could not be hid from Christ), and
is irrecoverably lost, and will be most certainly damned, durst that
minister admit that person to the sacrament, and make those words
applicable to him so much as conditionally, “This is the Lord’s
body broken for you; this is the blood of the new covenant shed for
you unto remission of sins?” How much less would Christ himself say
so, or mean so, in reference to Judas?

2. If Christ would not pray for Judas,
but for his elect apostles only, and such as should believe through
the word of the gospel, then he meant not so much as conditionally to
give his body and blood for Judas (for if he meant any good to Judas,
so much as conditionally, he would not have excluded him from having
any part at all in his prayers to God). But Christ does exclude Judas
from his prayer, John 17, not only as one of the reprobate world, ver.
9, but even by name, ver. 12, giving him over for lost, and one that
was not to be prayed for.

3. Love and hatred in God, and in his
Son Jesus Christ, being eternal and unchangeable (for actus
Dei immanentes sunt aeterni), it follows that if there was such a
decree of God, or any such meaning or intention in Christ, as to give
his body and blood for Judas, whom he knew infallibly to be lost, and
since that same conditional meaning or intention could not be without
a conditional love of God and of Christ to Judas and his salvation,
this love does still continue in God, and in Christ, to save Judas now
in hell, upon condition of his believing, which every Christian I
think will abominate.

4. That conditional love and conditional
intention or meaning, could not have place in the Son of God. For as
Spanhemius does rightly argue in his learned exercitations, de
Gratia Universali, p. 76,[29]
it does not become either the wisdom or goodness of God to will and
intend a thing upon such a condition as neither is nor can be. And p.
829, he says, that this conditional destination or intention cannot be
conceived, as being incident only to such as do neither foreknow nor
direct and order the event, and in whose hand it is not to give the
faculty and will of performing the thing, which cannot without impiety
be thought or said of God. Thus he.

The third argument (which I shall now
add) is that whereby Hilarius, can. 30, in Matt., and Innocentius III.
lib. 4, de Mysterio Miss. cap.
13, prove that Judas received not the sacrament, neither was present
at the receiving of it: because that night while Judas was present,
Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his apostles did
make an exception, as John 13:10, 11, “Ye are clean, but not all;
for he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, Ye are not all
clean;” ver. 18, “I speak not of you all, I know whom I have
chosen;” so ver. 21, even as before; John 6:70, “Have not I chosen
you twelve, and one of you is a devil.” But at the sacrament all his
sweet and gracious speeches are without any such exception, “This is
my body which is given for you,” &c. Yea he says positively of
all the apostles to whom he gave the sacrament, “I will not drink
henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it
new with you in my
Father’s kingdom,” Matt. 26:29, and this he says unto them all, as
it is clear from ver. 27, “Drink ye all of it.” Again, Luke
22:28-30, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my
temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my
kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Would not Christ much more have excepted Judas in these expressions,
if he had been present, seeing he had so often excepted him before?

As for Mr. Prynne’s reasons from
Scripture to prove that Judas did receive the sacrament, they are
extremely inconclusive. First, he says that Matthew, Mark and Luke,
are all express in terminis, that Christ sat down to eat the passover, and the
twelve apostles with him; that Judas was one of those twelve, and
present at the table; that as they sat at meat together, Jesus took
bread, &c., that he said of the cup, Drink ye all of it; and Mark
says they all drank of it.

Ans.
1. The three evangelists are all express in
terminis, that when even was come, Christ sat down with the
twelve, as likewise that the twelve did eat with him that night; but
that the twelve apostles were with him in the eating of the passover,
they are not express in terminis,
and I have some reasons which move me to think that Judas did not
eat so much as of the passover that night; whereof in the proper
place.[30]
2. And if he had been at the passover, that proves not he was at the
Lord’s supper. When Christ took the cup and said, “Drink ye all of
it,” it was after supper, that is, after the paschal supper, as Mr.
Prynne himself gives the sense. 3. When Mark says, “They all drank
of it,” he means all that were present, but Judas was gone forth.
His argument supposes that Judas was present, which being before
disproved, there remains no more strength nor life in his argument.

That which he added, p. 18, 19, if it
have either strength or good sense, I confess the dullness of my
conception. He would prove from Matthew and Mark, that immediately
before the institution of the sacrament, Christ told his disciples
that one of them should betray him, and they all asked, “Is it I?”
and that therefore certainly the sacrament was given to Judas, because
he was the last man that said “Is it I?” immediately before the
institution. And further (he says) Luke places these words of Christ
concerning Judas’s betraying of him, after the institution, which
manifests that Judas was present at the sacrament. His inference is
this, that seeing John avers, chap. 13:2, that all this discourse, and
the giving of the sop to Judas, was after supper, and the other three
evangelists agreeing that Christ instituted and distributed the
sacrament, as they did eat, before supper quite ended, it must follow
that Judas did receive the sacrament.

Ans.
1. But how does this hang together: 1. To argue that Judas
received the sacrament, because Christ’s discourse concerning Judas
and Judas’s question, “Is it I?” were immediately before the
institution of the sacrament; and again to prove that Judas did
receive the sacrament, because Christ’s discourse about Judas was
after supper ended, and after the sacrament, which was instituted
before supper ended? the one way of arguing destroys the other. 2. For
that in Matthew and Mark, that Christ discoursed of the traitor, and
that Judas said “Is it I?” before the institution of the
sacrament, I confess; but that it was immediately before the
institution of the sacrament the evangelists do not say, neither does
he prove it. Judas went out after that discourse and the sop, and how
much of the consolatory and valedictory sermon (which begins John
13:31) was spent before the distribution of the sacrament, who is so
wise as to know? 3. For that in Luke, I have proved that though he
sets down the things, yet not in that order wherein they were done;
which is also the opinion of Grotius upon that place.[31]
And for that, John 13:2, “Supper being ended,” I have answered
before.

Shall we, in the next place, have a heap
of human testimonies concerning Judas’s receiving of the sacrament?
I see so much light from the Scripture to the contrary, that I shall
not be easily shaken with the authority of men; yet it shall not be
amiss a little to try whether it be altogether so as he would make us
believe. He says we go “against all antiquity,” p. 18, and against
the most and best of Protestant writers, p. 23; yea, that all ages
have received it as an indubitable verity, that Judas received the
sacrament, p. 19. No, Sir, soft a little. The truth is, the thing has
been very much controverted, both among the fathers, and among
Papists, and among Protestant writers. I have found none so unanimous
for Judas’s receiving of the sacrament as the Lutherans, endeavoring
thereby to prove that the wicked hypocrites and unbelievers do, in the
sacrament, eat the true body of Christ, and drink his true blood;[32]
yet (as hot as they are upon it) they acknowledge it is no indubitable verity, they cite authorities against it as well as for
it. See Gerhardus, Harm. Evang.,
cap. 171; Brochmand, tom. 3, p. 2082.[33]
Neither do the Lutherans make any such use of Judas’s receiving of
the sacrament, as Mr. Prynne does; for they hold that not only
excommunicated persons, but scandalous and notorious sinners, not yet
excommunicated, ought to be kept back from the Lord’s table; see
Gerhardus, Loc. Com., tom. 52 180-182, where he proves distinctly that all
these ought to be excluded from the Lord’s supper: 1. Heretics. 2.
Notorious scandalous sinners. 3. Excommunicated persons. 4. Possessed
persons, furious persons, and idiots. 5. Infamous persons, who use
unlawful arts, as magicians, necromancers, &c.; and, for the
exclusion of scandalous sinners, he cites the ecclesiastical electoral
constitutions. Lucas Osiander (Enchir.
contra Anabap., cap. 6, quest. 3,)[34]
tells us, that the Lutheran churches exclude all known scandalous
persons from the sacrament. But it is strangest to me that Mr. Prynne
will not give credit to some of the testimonies cited by himself.
Theophylact, in Matt. 26, says, Quidam
autem dicunt quod egresso Juda, tradidit sacramentum aliis, discipulis,
proinde et nos sic facere debemus, et malos ŕ sacramentis abarcere.
Idem in Mark 14, Quidam dicunt (but who they were appears not, says Mr. Prynne, in
any extant work of theirs) Judam
non fuisse participem sacramentorum, sed egressum esse priusquam
dominus sacramenta traderet. Shall we take this upon Mr.
Prynne’s credit, that it does not appear in any extant work of
theirs? Nay, let him take better heed what he says, and whereof he
affirms. In the next page he himself excepts one, which is Hilarius;
but except him only, he says that all the ancients unanimously
accord herein, without one dissenting voice. But see, now, whether
all is to be believed that Mr. Prynne gives great words for. It is
well that he confesses we have Hilarius for us. First, therefore, let
the words of Hilarius be observed;[35]
next, I will prove what he denies, namely, that others of the ancients
were of the same opinion.

Clemens, lib. 5, Constit. Apost.,
cap. 13, after mention of the paschal or typical supper, adds these
words as of the apostles, [paradou'" de; hJmi`n ta" ajntijtupa musthvria tou` timivou
swvmato" ajutou` kaiŸ a{imato", jIouvda mhŸ sumparovnto" hJmi`n]:
But when he had delivered to us the antitype mysteries (so called in
reference to the paschal supper) of his precious body and blood, Judas
not being present with us. I do not own these eight books of the
apostolical constitutions as written by that Clemens who was Paul’s
fellow-laborer, Phil. 4, yet certainly they are ancient, as is
universally acknowledged. Dionysius Areopagita (or whosoever he was
that anciently wrote under that name), de Ecclestastica Hierarchia,
cap. 3, part 3, sect. 1,[36]
speaking of the same bread and the same cup, whereof all the
communicants are partakers, he says that this teaches them a divine
conformity of manners, and withal calls to mind Christ’s supper in
the night when he was betrayed, [KaqĆ
o} kaiŸ aujtoŸ" oJ tw`n sumbovlwn dhmiourlo", ajpoklhroi` dikaiovtata
toŸn oujc oJsivw~ ajutw/` kaiŸ oJmotrovpw~ taŸ iJeraŸ sundeipnhvsanta].
Inqua coena: so Ambrose the monk, in his Latin
translation;[37]
and Judocus Clichtoveus in his Commentary:[38]
In which supper (for [KaqĆj] relates to [toŸ dei'pnon],
the supper before mentioned, and signifies the time of supper, or
after supper was begun; so the Grecians use to say [kataŸ twŸn novson],
to signify in the time of sickness) “the author himself of those
symbols does most justly deprive or cast out him (Judas) who had not
holily, and with agreement of mind, supped together with him upon holy
things.” By those holy things he understands (it should seem) the
typical or paschal supper, of which Judas had eaten before, and
peradventure that night also, in the opinion of this ancient. Judocus
Clichtoveus, in his Commentary, says only that Judas did that
night eat together with Christ cibum, meat; he says not sacramentum.
This ancient writer is also of opinion, that Christ did excommunicate
Judas, or as Clichtoveus expounds him, ŕ coeterorum discipulorum
coetu aequissime separavit, discrevit et dispescuit. If you think
not this clear enough, hear the ancient scholiast Maximus, to whom the
Centurists give the testimony of a most learned and most holy man. He
flourished in the seventh century under Constance; he was a chief
opposer of the Monothelites, and afterwards a martyr.[39]
His scholia upon that place of Dionysius, makes this inference
[
}Oti metaŸ toŸ ejxelqei'n toŸn Ćiouvdan ijk tou' deivpnon, parevdwken
oJ Cri~to" toi' maqhtai' toŸ musthvrion] That after Judas had
gone forth from supper, Christ gave the mystery to his disciples.
Again, [KaiŸ shmeivwsai, o{ti
kaiŸ ajutw` metevdwke tou` mustikou` a{rtou kaiŸ tou`
pothrivou, taŸ deŸ musthvria toi`~ maqhtai`~ metaŸ toŸ ejxelqei`n tou`
deivpnou toŸn Ćiouvdan, wJ~ ajnaxivou touvtwn o[nto~ ajutou`]:
Where note, that to him also (that is, to Judas) he (Christ) gave of a
mystical bread (meaning the unleavened bread of the Passover) and cup
(meaning the cup drunk at the paschal supper), but the mysteries (that
is, the eucharistical bread and cup, commonly called the mysteries
by ancient writers) he gave to his disciples after Judas went forth
from supper, as it were, because Judas himself was unworthy of these
mysteries.

Add hereunto the testimony of Georgius
Pachymeres,[40]
who lived in the thirteenth century. In his Paraphrase
upon that same place of Dionysius,[41]
he says that Christ himself, the author and institutor of this
sacrament, [ajpoklhroi` kaiŸ ejpodiastevllei dikaiovtata toŸn
oujc oJsivw~ sundeipnhvsanta Ćiouvdan, kaiŸ ajutw` gaŸr tou` mustikou`
a[rtou kaiŸ tou` pothrivou metadou', taŸ musthvria movnoi~ maqhtai`~,
metaŸ toŸ ejcelqei`n ejkei`non ejk tou` deivpnou, parevdwken, wJ~
ajnaxivou touvtwn o[nto~ tou` ĆIouvda]: Christ does cast
out and separate, or excommunicate most justly, Judas, who had not
holily supped together with him. For having given to him also of a
mystical bread and cup, he gave the mysteries to the disciples alone,
after he went forth from supper, thereby, as it were, showing that
Judas was unworthy of these mysteries.

By the mysteries which Maximus and
Pachymeres speak of, and which, they say, Christ gave to his disciples
after Judas was gone forth, I can understand nothing but the
eucharistical supper, the elements whereof are very frequently called the
mysteries by the ancients, as has been said. And if any man shall
understand by these mysteries the inward graces or things signified in
the Lord’s supper, then what sense can there be in that which
Maximus and Pachymeres say? for Christ could as easily keep back from
Judas, and give to his other disciples, those graces and operations of
his Spirit, when Judas was present among them, as when he was cast
out. So that it could not be said that Christ did cast out Judas in
order to the restraining from him, and giving to the other disciples,
the invisible inward grace signified in the sacrament, as if the other
apostles had not received that grace at the receiving of the
sacrament, but that Judas must first be cast out, before they could
receive it; or as if Judas had received the inward grace, if he had
not gone out from supper. The sense must therefore be this, that
Judas, as an unworthy person, was cast out by Christ, before he
thought fit to give the sacrament of his supper unto his other
apostles.

Unto all these testimonies add Ammonius
Alexandrinus, de Quatuor
Evangelioram Consonantia, cap. 155,[42]
where he has the story of Judas’s receiving of the sop, and his
going forth immediately after he had received it; thereafter, cap.
156, he adds the institution and distribution of the Lord’s supper,
as being, in order, posterior to Judas’s going forth. So likewise
before him, Tacianus makes the history of the institution of the
sacrament to follow after the excluding of Judas from the company of
Christ and his apostles, which neither of them had done, if they had
not believed that Judas was gone before the sacrament. With all these
agrees Innocentius III,[43]
who holds expressly that the sacrament was not given till Judas had
gone forth; and that there is a recapitulation in the narration of
Luke. Moreover, as it is evident by the fore-mentioned testimonies of
Theophylact, that some of the ancients did hold that Christ gave not
the sacrament to Judas; so also the testimony cited by Mr. Prynne out
of Victor Antiochenus bears
witness to the same thing: Sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectam eucharistiae sacramentum exivisse
existiment: But yet, he says, there are who conceive that Judas
went forth before the sacrament of the eucharist was given. And with
these words Mr. Prynne closes his citation out of Victor
Antiochenus;[44] but I will proceed where he left off. The very
next words are these, Sane
Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur: Certainly John
seems to intimate some such thing. Which is more than half a
consenting with those who think that Judas went forth before the
sacrament of the Lord’s supper. I shall end with two testimonies of
Rupertus Tuitiensis, one upon John 6;[45]
another upon John 13.[46]
The latter of the two speaks thus, being Englished: “But we must
know that, as it has been also said before us, if Judas, after the
sop, did go forth immediately, as, a little after, the Evangelist
says, without doubt, he was not present with the disciples at that
time, when our Lord did distribute unto them the sacrament of his own
body and blood.” And a little after: “Therefore, by the Lord’s
example, the good ought, indeed, to tolerate the bad in the church,
until, by the fan of judgment, the grain be separated from the chaff,
or the tares from the wheat; but yet patience must not be so far void
of discerning, as that they should give the most sacred mysteries of
Christ to unworthy persons, whom they knew to be such.”

As for modern writers, this present
question has been debated by Salmeron, tom. 9, tract. 11, and by Dr.
Kellet in his Tricoenivm, lib.
2, cap. 14.[47]
Both of them hold that Judas did not receive the Lord’s supper.
Mariana on Luke 22:21, cites authors for both opinions, and rejects
neither;[48]
Gerhardus, Harm. Evang., cap.
171, cites for the same opinion, that Judas did not receive the
Lord’s supper (beside Salmeron), Turrianus and Barradius;[49]
and of ours, Danaeus,[50]
Musculus,[51]
Kleinwitzius, Piscator,[52]et alii complures, he says, and
many others.

Add also Zanchius upon the fourth
command.[53]
Gomarus (who professedly handles this question), upon John 13.[54]
Beza puts it out of question;[55]
and Tossanus[56]
tells us it is the judgment of many learned men, as well as his own.[57]
Musculus, following Rupertus, concludes that certainly Judas was gone
forth before Christ gave the sacrament to his apostles;[58]
so likewise Diodati and Grotius.[59]

By this time it appears that Mr. Prynne
has no such consent of writers of his opinion, or against mine, as he
pretends.

As for those ancients cited by Mr.
Prynne, some of them (as Origen and Cyril) did go upon this great
mistake, that the sop which Christ gave to Judas was the sacrament;
which error of theirs is observed by interpreters upon the place. No
marvel that they who thought so, were also of opinion that Judas
received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; for how could they
choose to think otherwise upon that supposition? But now the latter
interpreters, yea Mr. Prynne himself, having taken away that which was
the ground of their opinion, their testimonies will weigh the less in
this particular. Chrysostom thinks indeed that Judas received the
sacrament, but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission
of scandalous persons; for in one and the same homily, hom. 83, in
Matt. he both tells us of Judas’s receiving of the sacrament and
discourses at large against the admission of scandalous persons. As
for Bernard, Mr. Prynne does not cite his words nor quote the place.
Oecumenius (in the passage cited by Mr. Prynne) says that the other
apostles and Judas did eat together communi
mensa, at a common table; but he says not “at the sacrament of
the Lord’s supper.” That which Oecumenius in that place argues
against, is the contempt of the poor in the church of Corinth, and the
secluding of them from the love-feasts of the richer sort. Now, he
says, if Christ himself admitted Judas to eat at one and the same
table with his other disciples, ought not we much more admit the poor
to eat at our tables? Mr. Prynne tells us also that Nazianzen, in his Christus
Patiens,[60]agrees that Judas did receive the Lord’s supper together with
the other apostles. I answer, first, I find no such thing in that
place; next, those verses so entitled are thought to be done by some
late author, and not by Nazianzen, as J. Newenklaius, in his censure
upon them, notes, and gives reason for it. Cyprian’s sermon de ablutione pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprian’s,
so the words cited by Mr. Prynne do not prove the point in
controversy. The other testimony cited out of Cyprian’s sermon de
coena Domini, as it is not transcribed according to the original,
so if Mr. Prynne had read all which Cyprian says in that sermon
against unworthy receivers, peradventure he had not made use of that
testimony. The words cited out of Ambrose do not hold forth clearly
Judas’s receiving of the eucharistical supper. The words cited out
of Augustine, epist. 162, Judas accepit pretium nostrum, are not there to be found, though
there be something to that sense. It is no safe way of citations to
change the words of authors. This by the way. As for his other three
citations out of Augustine, tract 6, 26, 62, in John, I cannot pass
them without two animadversions. First, the greatest part of those
words which he cites as Augustine’s words, and also as recited by
Beda in his commentary on 1 Cor. 11 is not to be found either in
Augustine or Beda in the places by him cited; viz. these words: Talis
erat Judas, et tamen cum sanctis discipulis undecim intrabat et exibat.
Ad ipsam coenam Dominicam pariter accessit, conversari cum iis potuit,
eos inquinare non potuit: De uno pane et Petrus accipit et Judas; et
tamen quae pars fideli et infideli? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam,
manducat Judas ad mortem: qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi
manducat et bibit SIBI, NON TIBI, &c. Of which last sentence if Mr. Prynne can
make good Latin, let him do it (for I cannot), and when he has done
so, he may be pleased to look over his books better to seek those
words elsewhere if he can find them, for as yet he has directed us to
seek them where they are not.

My next animadversion shall be this. The
words of Augustine which Mr. Prynne alleges for Judas’s receiving of
the sacrament, are these, tract 6, in John: Num
enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae ŕDomino?
Absit. Medicus non daret venenum; salutem medicus dedit, sed indigne
accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, quia non pacatus accepit. Thus
the original, though not so recited by Mr. Prynne; but that I pass, so
long as he retains the substance. Yet how will he conclude from these
words that Judas received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, unless
he make Augustine to contradict himself most grossly; for tract 62, in
John (another place whither Mr. Prynne directs us), speaking of
Christ’s giving of that buccella
or sop to Judas, he says, Non
autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Judas Christi corpus
accepit: But Judas did not at that time receive the body of
Christ, as some negligently reading do think. Which words Beda also in
his comment on John 13 has out of Augustine. It is Augustine’s
opinion that the sacrament was given before that time, at which Judas
was present. That which Mr. Prynne cites out of Algerus[61]
(a monk, who in that same book writes expressly for
transubstantiation) makes more against him than for him; for Algerus
takes the reason of Christ’s giving the sacrament to Judas, to be
this, because his perverse conscience, though known to Christ, was not
then made manifest, Judas not being accused and condemned, so that he
was a secret, not a scandalous sinner.

Thus far we have a taste of Mr.
Prynne’s citations of the ancients; peradventure it were not hard to
find as great flaws in some other of those citations. But it is not
worth the while to stay so long upon it. Among the rest he cites Haymo,
bishop of Halberstat,[62]
for Judas’s receiving of the sacrament; but he may also be pleased
to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to
receive the sacrament, and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily
qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud (sacramentum)
sumere: that is, who being defiled with heinous crimes presumes to
take the sacrament; but if he had thought it (as Mr. Prynne does) the
most effectual ordinance, and readiest means to work conversion and
repentance, he could not have said so. That which Mr. Prynne, p. 23,
cites out of the two Confessions of Bohemia and Belgia does not assert
that for which he cites them; for neither of them say that Judas did
receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. The Belgic
Confession says an evil man may receive the sacrament unto his own
condemnation: “As for example, Judas and Simon Magus both of them
did receive the sacramental sign.” I can subscribe to all this; for
it is true in respect of the baptism both of Judas and Simon Magus.
But I must here put Mr. Prynne in mind, that the thing which he pleads
for is extremely different from that which the Belgic churches hold.
For Harmonia Synodorum
Belgicarum, cap. 13, says thus, Nemoad Coenam donminican admittatur, nisi qui fidei confessionem, ante
reddiderit, et disciplinae ecclesiasticae se subjecerit, et vitae
inculpatae testes fideles produxerit: Let no man be admitted to
the Lord’s supper, except he who has first made a confession of his
faith, and has subjected himself to the church discipline, and has
proved himself by faithful witnesses to be of an unblameable life. The
other Confession of Bohemia, says that “Judas received the sacrament
of the Lord Christ himself, did also execute the function of a
preacher, and yet he ceased not to remain a devil, an hypocrite,”
&c. This needs not be expounded of the Lord’s supper (which if
he had received, how did he still remain an hypocrite? for that very
night his wickedness did break forth and was put in execution), but of
the passover, received by Judas once and again, if not the third time.
That chapter is of sacraments in general, and that which is added, is
concerning Ananias and his wife, being baptized of the apostles.
However the very same chapter says that ministers must thoroughly look
to it, and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs, or
cast pearls before swine; which is there applied to the sacraments,
and is not understood of preaching and admonishing, only as Mr. Prynne
understands it. Also the book entitled Ratio
Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Unitate, Fratrum Bohemorum, cap.
7,[63]
appoints not only church discipline in general, but particularly
suspension from the Lord’s table of obstinate offenders. Finally,
whereas Mr. Prynne cites a passage of the antiquated Common
Prayer–book, as it has lost the authority which once it had, so that
passage does not by any necessary inference hold forth that Judas
received the sacrament, as Dr. Kellet shows at some length in his Tricoenium.

The citation in which Mr. Prynne is most
large, is that of Alex. Alensis,[64]
part. 4, quest. 11, mem. 2, art. 1, sect. 4 (though not so quoted by
him); but for a retribution, I shall tell him three great points in
which Alex. Alensis, in that very dispute of the receiving of the
eucharist, is utterly against his principles: First, Alex. Alensis is
of opinion that the precept, Matt. 7:6, “Give not that which is holy
unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,” does
extend to the denying of the sacrament to known profane Christians;
for both in that section which has been cited, and art. 3, sect. 1,
answering objections from that text, he does not say, that it is meant
of the word, not of the sacrament; and of infidels, heretics,
persecutors, not of profane ones; but he ever supposes, that the
ministers are forbidden by that text to consent to give the sacrament
to profane scandalous sinners. Secondly, Alex. Alensis holds that
Christ’s giving of the sacrament to Judas is no warrant to ministers
to give the sacrament to public notorious scandalous sinners, though
they do desire it. And thus he resolves, Ibid., art. 3, sect. 1, “If the priest know any man by confession
to be in a mortal sin, he ought to admonish him in secret, that he
approach not to the table of the Lord; and he ought to deny unto such
an one the body of Christ, if he desire it in secret; but if he desire
it in public, then either his sin is public or secret, if public
he ought to deny it unto him; neither so does he reveal sin
because it is public; if private he must give it, lest a worse thing
fall out.” Thirdly, Alex. Alensis holds the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper, not to be a converting but a confirming and
conserving ordinance, Ibid. art.
2, sect. 2. His words I shall cite in the debating of that
controversy.[65]

-----------------------------------------

[1]
[William Prynne (1600-1669) had written an eight page tract
addressed to the Westminster Assembly, Foure serious questions
of grand importance, … (London,
1645). The Vindication is: A vindication of foure
serious qvestions of grand importance … from some misprisions
and unjust exceptions lately taken against them; both in the
pulpit, by a Reverend Brother of Scotland, in a sermon at
Margarets Church in Westminster, before the honourable House of
Commons, at a publike fast there held for Scotland, on the 5th of
September last : and in the presse, by three new-printed
pamphlets, by way of answer to, and censure of them ... (London,
1645).]

[9]
[Annotations upon all the books of the Old and New Testament :
wherein the text is explained, doubts resolved, Scriptures
parallelled and various readings observed / by the joynt-labour of
certain learned divines, thereunto appointed, and therein
employed, as is expressed in the preface (London: Printed by
John Legatt and John Raworth, 1645).]

[14]
[David Paraeus, German Reformed Theologian (1548-1586). Works
(1647, 3 vols.). William Fulk, Puritan divine (d.1589). Rhemes
Translation of the New Testament, and the authorized English
Version, with the arguments of books, chapters, and annotations of
the Rhemists, and Dr. Fulke’s Confutation of all such arguments,
glosses, and annotations (1580; Cambridge, 1843). Thomas
Cartwright (1535-1603), Commentaria Practica in totam Historiam
Evangelicam (1630, English, 1650).]

[32]
Gerhardus, Loc. Com., tom. 5, p. 186,187; Petrus Hinckelmannus de
Anabaptismo, disp. 5, cap. 2. [Peter Hinkelmann, (1571-1622).
This may be Anabaptismi
errores refutati (Rostockii, 1613) or a part of another
publication by Hinckelmann, or a separate work. The editor only
discovered the 1613 title by publication deadline.]

[42]
[Ammononius, third century Christian philosopher. There was a
Latin translation made of his Harmony
of the Gospels by Victor of Capua. Ammonii, vulgo
Tatiani, diatessaron, sive harmoniae in quatuor evangelia (Mayence,
1524).

[59]
Diodati upon John 13:20. – “We may gather from hence that he
(Judas) did not communicate of our Savior’s sacrament.” [Jean
Diodati, Reformed divine (1576-1649), Annotationes in Biblia
(Geneva, 1607).] Grotius, Annot. in Matt. 26:21, 26; Luke 22:21;
John 13, holds the supper at which the sop was given to Judas, and
from which he went forth, was the common supper, and that it was
before the Lord’s supper, and that Luke does not place
Christ’s words concerning Judas, Luke 22:21, in the proper
place. [Ibid.]

[60]
[Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389). The work, Christus Patiens,
is attributed to him.]

[61]
[Probably Alger Of Ličge, Flemish priest (1060-1131), De
sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Dominici — “Concerning
the Sacraments of the Body and the Blood of the Lord”.